It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Many of us on the Right - and I believe our numbers are growing - have come to question why, in the post-Cold War era, the United States continues to expend vast amounts on static overseas military deployments. We question, too, the concept of using our precious defense assets on nation building.
Often, when we express our doubts, we are met with dismissive accusations of "isolationism" or accused of wishing to surrender America's status as the world's sole superpower.
Isolationism, of course, is the doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, or international agreements in order to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and to remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
I can think of no one today who espouses that doctrine But many of us do believe that the United States is over-extended and that we should consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether there is any longer a pressing self-interest in our commitment of national resources in, say, Korea or Germany or, dare one say it, NATO or the UN.
Many of us also question whether it is not time to bow to reality and accept that our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been limited to punitive expeditions and that, as much as we Americans hate to be quitters, the time has come to humbly accept that even the world's greatest superpower cannot impose a lasting democratic template upon retrograde tribal societies.
These are questions that should be asked. America is not, and never wished to be, an imperial power. Nevertheless, our current global commitments are imperial in scope - and the examples of what happened to imperial powers when they reached the limits of their resources should give us pause.
A call for thoughtful re-assessment of our global role is a recognition that the world has changed and that the manner in which we project American power in pursuit of our national interests must change, also.
To cavalierly brand such thinking as isolationist is to seek to foreclose discussion - something thoughtful conservatives should never seek to do.
- Comment (138)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
When Gorbachev was pushing reform in the final days of the Soviet Union, I would say that he was riding the tiger. At the time, if you faltered or failed to please the politburo in that job your future looked pretty bleak.
Pax Americana has the same complication. Withdraw from Europe and lose clout in Europe. Withdraw from Asia and China stands to run the table.
In Europe's case, it is time for them to grow up and cover their own bets, whether as NATO or the EU. It is not that the US spends too much on defense, it is that Europe does not spend enough. A vibrant European military at this stage will do far more to dissuade Russian adventurism than the American presence.
Enjoy your Pearl Harbor Day.
May '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Your points are well taken and reasonable Kenneth, but they don't form much of a rubric for future action. Can you articulate some new basic principles that you think should determine when intervention is warranted and when it's not. What is the Kenneth Doctrine?
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Kenneth
The Kenneth Doctrine would mean that we will only employ our military assets to protect our access to strategic materials and shipping lanes, or to counter aggression which represents a clear and present danger to American citizens and the American homeland. Otherwise, we expect the world's democracies to provide for their own defense.
As it is, we have undertaken to defend every democracy on the planet. But the truth is, not every democracy is indispensable to our national security. This is simply unsustainable.
May '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
I was going to ask Kenneth the same question. Criticizing current American foreign policy is one thing, but by criticizing it one is at least implicitly arguing that it deviates from some standard or model that foreign policies should conform to. The nature of the Kenneth Doctrine would perhaps best express itself if it was applied. The individual rights of American citizens should be protected from foreign aggression (initial uses of force as well as threats of initial uses) which includes protecting against actual attacks and threats to attack as well as coercive obstructions to commerce. But how would have the Kenneth Doctrine been applied in the past with regard to WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, assuming one is in possession of all the pertinent information regarding belligerents and threats?
Nov '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
I think there's more to it that protecting our interests. Our way of life, our world view, our innate value for human life, our desire for liberty for all people, all of those intangible goods are things we need to be exporting. Maybe I'll come under fire for saying it, but I believe the most important role the united states has is furthering the cause of freedom all over the world. Obviously, we can't be imperialists in a humanitarian getup. We have to actually be humanitarians. Our foreign policy should rewards foreign governments that promote individual liberty, free trade, etc. And it should punish those that do the opposite.
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Kenneth, I remember when Bush ran on the same principle and won.
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
WWI? Not our beef. WW2? Honestly, you're asking me that on Pearl Harbor Day? Korea and Vietnam - justified as pushback against Communist expansion.
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
And then abandoned the principle in Iraq and Afghanistan, under the influence of a tyro Secretary of State whose claim to fame was her expertise in matters Soviet, so she continued to see things through a Cold War lens: remove the immediate threat, and then install "our guy" to stabilize the theater.
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
So, by your humanitarian standards, shouldn't we be in Darfur right now? What about Somalia or Myanmar? Heck, people are being slaughtered in Pakistan, the Congo, Nigeria...
Slippery, slippery slope, friend.
May '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Kenneth, you are absolutely correct that
1) Bush ran on a non-intervention principle (I naively believed the same thing in 2000), but reality intervened
2) We can't save the whole world, I agree
3) But where our vital strategic interests intersect with a humanitarian and/or bad guy problem, we evaluate- and iontervention may well be the right thing to do
4) When other developed countries ignore their defense responsibilities, whether we like it or not, if our interests are also impacted, we have to act. It's not fair, but life isn't fair- you don't leave the playground bullies to beat up the little kids just because the teachers refuse to do their duties. When these situations occur, immediately put the non-participating country on our DoD "no-spend" list. If France doesn't kick in in Afghanistan, declare Airbus ineligible for the USAF air tanker award. They'll squawk, who cares.
There's a lot more to say about this, at some point I'll do a non-200 word post.
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Duane Oyen: Kenneth, you are absolutely correct that
1) Bush ran on a non-intervention principle (I naively believed the same thing in 2000), but reality intervened
2) We can't save the whole world, I agree
3) But where our vital strategic interests intersect with a humanitarian and/or bad guy problem, we evaluate- and iontervention may well be the right thing to do
4) When other developed countries ignore their defense responsibilities, whether we like it or not, if our interests are also impacted, we have to act. It's not fair, but life isn't fair- you don't leave the playground bullies to beat up the little kids just because the teachers refuse to do their duties. When these situations occur, immediately put the non-participating country on our DoD "no-spend" list. If France doesn't kick in in Afghanistan, declare Airbus ineligible for the USAF air tanker award. They'll squawk, who cares.
Dec 7 at 12:13pm
Duane, I don't think I've said anything that contradicts what you're saying here, except that I don't believe intervention for "humanitarian" purposes is in our strategic interest.
May '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Kenneth
So, by your humanitarian standards, shouldn't we be in Darfur right now? What about Somalia or Myanmar? Heck, people are being slaughtered in Pakistan, the Congo, Nigeria...
Slippery, slippery slope, friend.
Agreed. We can't save the world, but we should probably do what we can.
The tricky part is figuring out how to make other nations be more involved in their own defense and defense of their neighbors. Whatever we do will require risk, but there are imperialist dictators around the world who would love to see America neuter itself.
One should also consider that even nations which are weak and insignificant in most respects, like North Korea, can cause regional wars. Both World Wars began as smaller wars in areas that America was not heavily invested in.
Aug '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
I suspect that La Serenissima would have something to say about the Kenneth Doctrine.
Or the cats would, through her.
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
This is really interesting. I find myself hugely attracted to the Kenneth Doctrine.
But what I'd like to know is, what are the criteria for deciding that something is in "America's strategic interests?" Obviously, defense of our borders, right? (We're failing at that, but let's put that aside for a moment....)
A more peaceful world? Unfettered access to oil that can be cheaply collected? A world in which there are no new members in the Nuclear Club?
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Rob Long: This is really interesting. I find myself hugely attracted to the Kenneth Doctrine.
But what I'd like to know is, what are the criteria for deciding that something is in "America's strategic interests?" Obviously, defense of our borders, right? (We're failing at that, but let's put that aside for a moment....)
A more peaceful world? Unfettered access to oil that can be cheaply collected? A world in which there are no new members in the Nuclear Club? · Dec 7 at 1:48pm
Rob, depending upon where you go for information, we currently have troops deployed in over 135 countries around the globe.
Pragmatically, I think we need to examine every one of those deployments and ask ourselves whether each deployment is essential to our national security, which I define as defense of our borders and our citizens; defense of our access to strategic materials and defense of essential trading partners against a clear threat.
Otherwise, we will continue on the route of Pax Americana, which is as unsustainable as the Roman or British empires.
Aug '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
I once heard that more US military personnel have been deployed abroad annually since the end of the Cold War than were ever deployed annually in the period between 1945 until the end of the Cold War.
It would take more time than I'm willing to put in to verify that claim, but I did do a very cursory fact-check. There are currently 369,000 American servicemen stationed around the world. I believe that there were no more than 50,000 servicemen sent to Korea, and I do not believe the number of troops in Vietnam ever exceeded 300,000 in a single year, and the number of troops stationed in places like Germany and the Pacific wouldn't have added significantly to the total statistic.
So, assuming this factoid turns out to indeed be true, one could argue that rather than being "isolationist", the Kenneth Doctrine could be seen as a return to a level of international engagement on par with that which was considered proper during the Cold War. Would many historians argue that the United States was "isolationist" during that period?
Aug '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Apropos of nothing, but these stats regarding troops overseas caught my eye:
Is it just me, or does it seem strange that Germany is still the second-largest deployment, considering all of the hotspots elsewhere on the planet?
May '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
All those troops in Germany wouldn't be so strange if we had done something more substantial when Russia invaded Georgia.
Jul '10
Re: It's not Isolationism, it's Reality
Misthiocracy: Apropos of nothing, but these stats regarding troops overseas caught my eye:
Is it just me, or does it seem strange that Germany is still the second-largest deployment, considering all of the hotspots elsewhere on the planet? · Dec 7 at 3:23pm
Imagine the national-security benefit of having just 10% of those troops stationed along our southern border.